ATTENTION EVERYONE

ATTENTION EVERYONE

WIKIPEDIA HAS STARTED TO REMOVE AND CENSOR CRITICISMS FROM GAMES AND MOVIES

DESTINY, UNCHARTED AND MAD MAX HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED TO HAVE MISSING WORDS/REFERENCES

USE THE INTERNET ARCHIVES, SEE IT FOR YOURSELF

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Wikipedia_conflicts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

literally fuck off if you care about wikipedia or reviews

>just ignore it goy! totally nothing wrong

Disgusting, keep us updated OP.

Who cares tho?

Wiki isn't for criticism

source?

Nice 8fag thread, maybe you should go back there if you want people to help you out with your social justice crusade ;)

>wikipedia
I bet it's the devs themselves want their shit to look less stinky

who gives a shit lmfao

Criticism is cruel and hurts peoples feeling

You're not one of those "Truescum" bigots that like to reference facts, logic, reason and statistics, are you?

Source?

> Event surrounding a videogame are not worth being in a page about the videogame
I guess removing every trace of driv3rgate was alright then. It totally wasn't a PR firm doing damage control.

>wikipedia is run by biased faggots.
whats new

>driv3rgate

is this the new evil jewstein cuck shill feminazi conspiracy you're shilling?

> Being this underage
wew lad

Wikipedia isn't supposed to include criticism anyways. It's an encyclopedia and simply presents facts. It can present links to reviews, aggregate scores, and such.

...

well meme'd

I actually agree with that move. Criticism isn't facts, and wikipedia should be about facts (unfortunately it barely has any).

>using Wikipedia
just do your own Wiki site

Try looking it up on wikipedia then
Oh wait you can't because it was removed by a fucking pr firm

edit it back then
who cares, people look up reviews if they want to see that, not wikipedia

> actually using Wikipedia
I thought school was done for the summer

It's not for criticising things directly but it is for documenting the reaction to the subjects of its articles ideally in a fairly accurate manner, positive and negative.
Not that this seems like anything new or worth caring about.

Fuck off back to 8gag, GooberGot.

I'm looking at the Wiki page right now, and it still has stuff about driv3rgate

except most works of art have a section labeled critical reception on Wikipedia, good thing to have on an encyclopedia, though Driv3rgate proved that to be unreliable way back when.


Fun fact: spellcheck considers Driv3rgate a to be a legit English word

Rebbit telling someone to go somewhere? What the hell is going on?

It's just phrased as "the movie commonly received criticism for...." with citations.

...

isn't it just supposed to describe the game or movie in a neutral way then in the the criticisms/reception part mention if it was well received and so on?

are they removing only the negative shit or all mention of criticism good or bad?

:^)

But Driver 3 IS a good game. I don't get it?

its probably just because the sources were shitty and unreliable for that info

I never played it, but "driv3rgate" sounds like an average day on Sup Forums.

I think I read that the game ran really shit and people were upset that reviews didn't mention it. I don't really know much else cause I didn't give a shit about the game back then, or now really

Wikipedia articles should be completely free of opinions. They are there to provide the facts and statistics of a given subject, along with a citation list.

You are just the kind of shitposter that goes around fucking with articles "4 teh lulz". No on cares about your bullshit.

What if the criticism was about the game being poorly made objectively like AssCreed France

>Criticism isn't facts

Imagine being this dumb.

There is usually a Reception sub-topic on the articles, and in those criticism is a fact. Like X movie was heavily criticized for X reason, that's a fact. I haven't checked but if those parts were deleted, it is censorhip.

the criticism/reception section marks how the work was received and what criticisms it had
it is a fact that people have opinions and sometimes they are worth mentioning

fuck off gamergate

Friendly reminder that the SJW destroying video games are fools/tools/part of a fake grassroots movement created by COINTELPRO.

Fucking this, I am not surprised that people could be this oblivious

>UNCHARTED
OMG whata surprise!

Not sure what you are on to, but it is pretty fucking obvious that someone big supports them. I mean they pretend that they are some underdog fighting injustice, but most of media, corporations suck their dicks.

just put mewtwo at zucotti park, they will go away from internet

They were a direct response to the Occupy Movement to divide and conquer dissent with identity politics.

Every sufficiently fleshed-out article about a video game or a movie contains a "Reception" section with a summary of mainstream critical response.

If Wikipedia editors are arbitrarily deciding that only positive coverage is notable, it's unethical. If they're just refusing to allow the opinions of nobodies on the article, then there's nothing wrong. I don't care enough to find out which it is.

Oh I heard how some crazy feminists co-opted occupy wall street with their shit

And what's the end goal?

Weakening public dissent, after all, OCCUPY was ruined by retarded snowflakes who wanted to shout above everyone else about how their delusional first world issues mattered more than the actual problem at hand.

Not him responding and I have not thought of this much, but imagine if you can set up a system where everyone who critiques your shit is a misogynist, homophobe, racist or some shit. Like when people hated on ME3 and EA said because it had gays in it and it triggered some fag haters.

>This faggot doesn't know about driv3rgate

Fuck off underageb&

Divide and conquer.

>atari ET
>its just a page with release date

and? you shouldnt base too much expectations of vidya on its reviews but even if you do why would you go to Wikipedia instead of metacritic? it has all the critics scores abd then some along with the actual reviews themselves. not to mention everyone's known about authencity of wikipedia and its edits since 4th grade

>it's a "wikipedia is a publication with an editorial department and not just a sandbox for literally anyone with a computer to share information" episode
PR firms have been editing wikipedia articles for their client for a decade, just revert the edits that remove content, if they do it enough the article will just get locked.

Isn't wikipedia supposed to be purely objective though?

Maybe in historical aritcles, where critisims from important people are involved, but Kotaku's opinion should never ever exist as a guideline.

And Wall Street is 100% behind Hillary. One starts at Sup Forums and eventually finds himself at Sup Forums at the end of the day. Your gaming hobby is a sacrifice.

Wikipedia is not a source, this is a common misunderstanding. When you read a wikipedia article you aren't reading something that goes "wikipedia says this" you're reading a collection of citations from other sources, you're reading a page that says "this article, this website and this book say this"

There's nothing nonobjective about a reception section that says "kotaku gave it a 2/10 (link to kotaku article) official playstation magazine gave it a 9 (link to article) and famitsu gave it a 40 (link to article)"
The page is literally just stating publicly known facts.

There is a video where Peter Hitchens calls the corporate and feminist alliance the most cynical thing since Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Could not find it, but I think he said it well.

Have you looked at it once? The models all have random polygons flying everywhere. That's not a good thing.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Wikipedia_conflicts

that was not the best bait you could've crafted user, OP didnt mention SJWism in his post, but i can see you made the effort. Have a (you) and keep up the work my fellow Sup Forumsirgin.

And why would you use Wikipedia to find criticism in the first place?

Negative reception doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Issues with games shouldn't be documented, game companies aren't doing anything wrong by removing conspiracy theory controversies from Wikipedia pages for their games. Just fuck off goobergaters and shut the fuck up about MUH SKELETON BOOGEYMAN